Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th May 2006 19:54 UTC
GTK+ GTK+ 2.9.0 has been released. This is the first development release leading up to GTK+ 2.10. For completeness: "GTK+ is a multi-platform toolkit for creating graphical user interfaces. Offering a complete set of widgets, GTK+ is suitable for projects ranging from small one-off tools to complete application suites."
Thread beginning with comment 121563
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Firefox's Choice
by kaiwai on Sat 6th May 2006 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Firefox's Choice"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

QT is GPL'd, so Mozilla would have to GPL any of their software that uses QT.

Absolutely, 100% incorrect; The licence for which Qt is licenced under is this; you either pay Trolltech for a commercial licence OR you release your application under GPL.

Also, when Mozilla was first released, it wasn't released under the GPL until later on; IIRC, its released under three licences.

As for their choice of GTK - It probably had to do more to do with the fact that the programmers are Netscape were familar with Motif, and wanted somethign that was easier to migrate to rather than something radically different.

As for Qt and Gecko, IMHO ultimately KDE programmers aren't to worried as eventually you'll see a split between Firefox/Thunderbird and the underlying 'core' so that you can download the 'core' seperately, and embed it easily rather than the situation now, where, for example, if on were to compile Epiphany, one needs to download the whole source etc. which is a long process, rather than simply just downloading the core components, and work up from there.

In the end, personally, KDE is far better off sticking with their own KHTML/KJS implementation, which is a lot cleaner, compact and efficient that the Mozilla core is right now - hopefully once Objective-C++ is accepted into the mainline of GNU-GCC, we'll see alot more code sharing between webcore and KHTML, as the need to translate between Objective-C++ and regular C++ would be non-existant.

Edited 2006-05-06 02:28

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Firefox's Choice
by zerblat on Sat 6th May 2006 03:55 in reply to "RE[4]: Firefox's Choice"
zerblat Member since:
2005-07-06

The licence for which Qt is licenced under is this; you either pay Trolltech for a commercial licence OR you release your application under GPL.

Which would mean either GPL everything or anyone wanting to work on Mozilla would need to buy a commercial Qt license (and they're not cheap).

But then, it's not true. You have a third option: the QPL, which permits you to use Qt with any open-source license.

Then again, AFAIK, Qt wasn't open source at all at the time the Netscape source code was first released, so the whole point is moot.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Firefox's Choice
by segedunum on Sat 6th May 2006 14:37 in reply to "RE[5]: Firefox's Choice"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Which would mean either GPL everything or anyone wanting to work on Mozilla would need to buy a commercial Qt license (and they're not cheap).

No. Read above.

Qt wasn't open source at all at the time the Netscape source code was first released, so the whole point is moot.

Which matters how? Motif got used for quite some time as I remember, a GTK port happened but even today it's not that great (which is why many people say Epiphany should be Gnome's browser). The Windows port is many, many times better.

Qt was open sourced, but it just didn't meet some peoples' definition.

I find all this totally pointless though because KDE already has a browser in Konqueror, a great engine in KHTML and it will be a great fully fledged web browser in KDE 4.

Firefox? What's that? Oh, that alternative browser for Windows...

Edited 2006-05-06 14:43

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Firefox's Choice
by binarycrusader on Sat 6th May 2006 04:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Firefox's Choice"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Absolutely, 100% incorrect; The licence for which Qt is licenced under is this; you either pay Trolltech for a commercial licence OR you release your application under GPL.

Actually, you can also use Qt under the QPL ;) So that's wrong too ;)

Also, when Mozilla was first released, it wasn't released under the GPL until later on; IIRC, its released under three licences.

The source code to Mozilla may be released under the GPL, but official binary builds from Mozilla.org are not. Read the EULA that accompanies it ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3